It's interesting to think that with a Super Bowl title next year, the Pats can, in one fell swoop, manage to eliminate arguing points for all but one of the counterpoints against their claim to being the greatest NFL dynasty ever (the one being the Packers' 3peat from 1965-67.)

It'd give them 6 titles which no coach/QB nucleus has ever had within a continuous dynasty which gives them the leg up on the 60s Packers and 80s/90s 49ers as well as give them a second repeat so the Steelers wouldn't be able to have that claim to hold over the Pats' heads.

Interestingly enough, it'd be the second time the Pats have won 3 titles in 4 years with the second year of that span being the missing year.

I guess for now, I'd lean toward a Pats/Packers matchup for SB LII but I wouldn't even bet $10 on it. The Packers just happen to be the NFC team who's most difficult to argue against their worthiness as a SB contender at this point imo. In the AFC, I don't think any other team has even half the chance that the Patriots do to make it to the SB but upsets happen all the time so who knows.

So the Patriots have 61m in cap space right now, and it'll likely go up to 67m. Their free agency issues aren't all that bad, even after they dump a truck full of money onto Dont'a Hightower's front yard. Jimmy Garopalo is the best QB in the draft this year. Owner's of the top 3 picks all need QB's and JG is going to start a bidding war between them. A full NFL season is an impossible thing to predict, but the drop between the best bet and the second best is pretty steep. There's really no team other than NE to bank on right now.

Logged

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows. E.F. Benson

Belichick is a top three coach and GM ever IMO, with a great owner. Top 5 owner I'll say easily. So it would be unreasonable to expect other franchises to replicate something similar. Especially because no one has, and maybe no one will to this degree in this era or beyond.

That said, this just has continuously showed that it's not about a bunch of top players, but a system or community with people buying in as a unified 22. Well, 22+ with special teams. Why else the constant reloading with virtually perfectly sustained relevance. With my hometown team (DET) being my team B, and hearing CLE and CIN fans talk here in Ohio; oh man, we got this pick, and that pick. Maybe we can get _____. NFL is not about that vs. NBA, yet many teams and fans seem to still fall into that trap.

We've seen this story a couple of times. A Patriot's backup QB generating a bunch of hype. Then they go to their new team and disappoint the hell out of everybody, bounce around the league for a few years and then fade into obscurity(Matt Cassel). I'd think that most teams would be wary of giving them a high round draft pick for him.

We've seen this story a couple of times. A Patriot's backup QB generating a bunch of hype. Then they go to their new team and disappoint the hell out of everybody, bounce around the league for a few years and then fade into obscurity(Matt Cassel). I'd think that most teams would be wary of giving them a high round draft pick for him.

Agreed. Besides, what has he done? Looked good for six quarters and then got hurt. So a team is going to give up a lot for a QB who lucked into a 4-game tryout and couldn't even last a game and a half before getting hurt? Good luck with that.

We've seen this story a couple of times. A Patriot's backup QB generating a bunch of hype. Then they go to their new team and disappoint the hell out of everybody, bounce around the league for a few years and then fade into obscurity(Matt Cassel). I'd think that most teams would be wary of giving you them a high round draft pick for him.

Agreed. Besides, what has he done? Looked good for six quarters and then got hurt. So a team is going to give up a lot for a QB who lucked into a 4-game tryout and couldn't even last a game and a half before getting hurt? Good luck with that.

Not to be contrarian, but a "dynasty" is defined as several championships within a SHORT period of time. They went 10 years without one. A couple of mini-dynasties may be more accurate. Semantics I guess.

Some chatter lately has been about how the Pats dynasty compares to others in football. Even though it is incredible what they have done in the free agency era, the Steelers won four Super Bowls in six years and was loaded with Hall of Famers. It will be hard for any team to ever top that. I don't think they beat the 49ers either, who won four Super Bowls in nine years and had to compete with Gibbs' Redkins and Parcells' Giants every year. The Patriots lack of Hall of Famers, when it is all said and done, will make it hard to put them ahead of those two dynasties. I think this run says more about Belichick and Brady than anything else.

Kev, there is an argument against Brady from one of the local sports radio hosts when compared to Montana that Brady is 5 for 7 in the Super Bowl, so he lost two, versus Montana who is undefeated in his 4 so therefore Brady can't be better than Montana. I don't agree with it but that's the argument.

Kev, there is an argument against Brady from one of the local sports radio hosts when compared to Montana that Brady is 5 for 7 in the Super Bowl, so he lost two, versus Montana who is undefeated in his 4 so therefore Brady can't be better than Montana. I don't agree with it but that's the argument.

I think it's a poor argument, and here is why:

1) Both of these guys played over 200 games, and we are going to boil down who is better to a 4-game sample size??

2) If we are going to look at Super Bowls, first off, Brady has now won more. Second, saying that 4-0 > 5-2 in this context implies that it is better to lose earlier in the playoffs. Consider:

-the four best playoff finishes of both guys, winning the Super Bowl, is a push. Both have won three Super Bowl MVPs, so that is a wash.-Montana's 5th best playoff finish was losing in the conference championship game; Brady's 5th best playoff finish was winning another Super Bowl.-Montana's 6th best playoff finish was losing in the conference championship game; Brady's 6th best playoff finish was losing in the Super Bowl.-Montana's 7th best playoff finish was losing in the conference championship game; Brady's 7th best playoff finish was losing in the Super Bowl.

Edge: Brady

3) If we look at the playoffs overall, Montana has the edge in individual play (95.6 passer rating vs 89.0), while Brady has the better record (25-9 vs 16-7).

Now, regarding individual play in the Super Bowl, Montana has the obvious edge: 11-0 TD-INT ratio > 15-5, plus Montana's offense averaged 35 points per game in his four Super Bowls, while Brady's has only averaged 23 points per game in seven. Brady clearly benefited greatly by having the best coach ever, plus the best kicker ever in his first three Super Bowls, but Montana benefited greatly by playing in the most innovative offense the NFL has ever seen, at its inception. It's a tough call. And I think Montana gets extra points for playing in era where you could legally knock the crap out of the QB, while Brady plays in an era where it's a penalty to breathe on the QB sometimes.

I just think the 4-0 > 5-2 argument is a very poor one. There are strong arguments for Montana still being ahead of Brady (although I put Brady and Peyton both ahead of him), but that is not one of them.

Kev, there is an argument against Brady from one of the local sports radio hosts when compared to Montana that Brady is 5 for 7 in the Super Bowl, so he lost two, versus Montana who is undefeated in his 4 so therefore Brady can't be better than Montana. I don't agree with it but that's the argument.

Niners fans love to throw that one out there, and they used to always use the 5 for 5 argument for the team until they lost to the Ravens. As a Niners fan, I think that argument is total BS. Super Bowl appearances are a good thing. Going to more of them is an accomplishment, even if you lose.

I just think the 4-0 > 5-2 argument is a very poor one. There are strong arguments for Montana still being ahead of Brady (although I put Brady and Peyton both ahead of him), but that is not one of them.

I agree Kev. No issue if someone want to pump Montana, but that is not the right argument. That just means Brady won 3 more Conference Championship games.

As for the ten year gap... I think that weighs in for Brady as well. In football - where many careers are measured in single digit GAMES, to be at that level of excellence for more than a DECADE is unbelievable. And while the gap in WINS was ten years, that doesn't mean they rolled up the tent and didn't play. In that gap, they were in the playoffs nine out of ten years, in the Super Bowl twice, and made the AFC Championship three other times. I think there are easy 20 teams in the league right now that would settle for a ten year run where they make the playoffs nine out of ten years, let alone all the other things.

The reason they had that gap was the defense for at least 7 of those years with less than average. The Pats became the Colts. If they has a team that could pressure Brady with 4 guys that would slow down the offense and the D for the most part gave up more points. If you look at the last 2 SB's their D has been better than average.

Logged

“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? -- BlobVanDam

We've seen this story a couple of times. A Patriot's backup QB generating a bunch of hype. Then they go to their new team and disappoint the hell out of everybody, bounce around the league for a few years and then fade into obscurity(Matt Cassel). I'd think that most teams would be wary of giving them a high round draft pick for him.

Agreed. Besides, what has he done? Looked good for six quarters and then got hurt. So a team is going to give up a lot for a QB who lucked into a 4-game tryout and couldn't even last a game and a half before getting hurt? Good luck with that.

So it doesn't look like a good deal. Neither did a whole lot of FA moves in the past and they still got made. But JG has an advantage the other guys didn't.He's still under contract for dirt cheap for another year. This isn't buying sight unseen. This is obtaining a one year test drive. So a team like Cleveland or San Francisco could draft Trubisky, sign him to 12th overall pick money and then pray to their gods that he's not awful, or they could use that pick on JG and see what he's got. And from what I've seen JG is more likely to be the better player anyway.

Logged

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows. E.F. Benson

So the Patriots have 61m in cap space right now, and it'll likely go up to 67m. Their free agency issues aren't all that bad, even after they dump a truck full of money onto Dont'a Hightower's front yard. Jimmy Garopalo is the best QB in the draft this year. Owner's of the top 3 picks all need QB's and JG is going to start a bidding war between them. A full NFL season is an impossible thing to predict, but the drop between the best bet and the second best is pretty steep. There's really no team other than NE to bank on right now.

Belichick gets a lot of praise for being a coach, but sometimes you don't realize how good of a GM he is as well. How such a good team can have all that cap space as well as a bench player that people want... is insane.

Joe wasn't always great in his SB appearances, either. The big head scratcher is his MVP performance in SB XVI.

From the wiki article: "Montana was named the Super Bowl MVP, completing 14 of 22 passes for 157 yards and one touchdown, while also rushing for 18 yards and a touchdown on the ground."

I'm one of those in the minority that still considers him to be better than Brady, but that SB win was more about the 49ers defense shutting down the Bengals at the goal line than the play of their offense.

I grew up watching Montana. Not to take anything away from him, but there is nothing I saw him do that I haven't seen Brady do. And Brady has done more of it. And Joe's last couple of seasons, it was obvious he was in the twilight of his career. Not saying he was bad by any stretch. But you could tell he was almost done. With Brady, I'm not seeing anything indicating he is near the end. I think, all told, he will play longer than Montana, and he could easily win another SB or two in that time.

Logged

"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

I grew up watching Montana. Not to take anything away from him, but there is nothing I saw him do that I haven't seen Brady do. And Brady has done more of it. And Joe's last couple of seasons, it was obvious he was in the twilight of his career. Not saying he was bad by any stretch. But you could tell he was almost done. With Brady, I'm not seeing anything indicating he is near the end. I think, all told, he will play longer than Montana, and he could easily win another SB or two in that time.

The Patriots lack of Hall of Famers, when it is all said and done, will make it hard to put them ahead of those two dynasties. I think this run says more about Belichick and Brady than anything else.

So to combine this all; sure, JM could have won more. But his teams were also much more stacked by comparison. The closet thing Brady had to a lot of those SF teams IMO was 2007's 18-1. And Brady pretty much blew the doors off that year. Looking at the numbers, JM's teams more often than not were top 5 in offense and defense, if not one or two ranked. And that includes years he did not make the SB.

Also consider that a QB (Young) who I could debate is nearly as good only won one more SB, with the teams JM would have had.

Let's be honest. Unbalanced team can win "A" SB. A balanced team can multiple. I've said this before but the D in the late 2000's and up to 2013 were less than average. You have 1 game that you shit down an offense and you win.

Logged

“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? -- BlobVanDam

Yeah, that's why I had the shocked face. He had a good not great year in 2013 number wise vs. his previous handful of years. Please don't talk about his WRs and Gronk being out, just commenting on Brady. He was looking backwards at his 30s. Nothing to do with a better replacement, but more so downward trending plus NE moving on from players early vs. later. Clearly I was wrong.